barebones communication

Time for another step into the interesting world of gestalt factors.

This is the fourth factor we are dealing with: The Factor of Direction.

Wertheimer says: ” As Figs. (…) also show we are dealing now with a new principle which we may call The Factor of Direction”.

The figures, that he is referring to are simple figures consisting of a straight line or curve (A & C) hit by one, or more, shorter lines or curves e.g. line/curve B. 

 Visual Figures: Main and secondary lines.

The two figures above are similar to some of the simplest figures Wertheimer used in his experiments, hereby indicated that some figures can be more complicated than the ones shown. However they all illustrate the same idea about directionality.

The main line structure is along the longer line A/C. He talks about “good continuation”, “inner coherence” and suggests that some linear structures show good gestalt simply “by its own inner necessity”. 

The shorter lines, B, in both cases above will tend to have secondary role in perceiving visual figures as these.

Wertheimer talks about the unequivocally of such patterns. They are unambiguous, and have a clear direction that is based on what is perceived as the main line structure of a figure.

This is not only the case when straight lines are involves, but it is also valid in curved lines when the longer curves is perceives more dominant than shorter, tangential curves. It seems to be a general phenomenon at work here, thus a gestalt factor. 

When talking about more complex units than those Wertheimer points to, like for instance photographs or pictures, it seems relevant to talk about perceived lines and perceived direction of a second level. Let’s call this second level directions for impressions. So, let me illustrate this with some pictures.

 Second Level Direction: Impression of coherency.

The coherent line in this image is, in my opinion, the diagonal line from the left hand low corner - the beach line. The horizontal line, which is the other main line in the image, cannot visually compete with the strength of the beach line. The placement of the woman in the continuation of the beach line gives a relaxed, coherent impression. Her facing the horizontal line helps lock up the line structures in the image.

 Second Level Direction: Impression of collision.

The main line in this image is perceived to be the line going vertically from the bottom of the picture to the other end of the tunnel, where the crowd of people are gathered - the tunnel line. The perceived horizontal line, where the three people move, is the secondary line - the crossing line. The inner coherence will be constituted along the tunnel line. As the crossing line is quite strong in thus picture it creates a kind a tension, a conflict in the image. However, as in the former picture, it helps to lock up the picture, that two of the crossing people face the main line and thereby link into that.

The main point with The Factor of Direction is that certain line structures seems to lend themselves to some sort of unambiguity, that ease the perception of them.

Adding more lines, and thereby introducing a more complex visual picture, can stress that ease of perception. Using Wertheimer’s visual figures it is pretty easy to agree on this, but these simple figures rarely exist in our life-world. As seen in the two photographs above, the visual deconstruction of real-life situation will be much more complex and demanding.

Real-life communication, of course, is in terms of complexity closer to the two photographs than to Wertheimer’s clinical experiments. And more demanding. Nothing to do about that, I am afraid .

How to use: 

As indicated in the pictures above, you can use the factor of direction in two ways: use it coherently and built on the good continuation, or skip the good continuation to set things, objects, logos, whatever, apart. 

Doing the first thing, you can expect perceptions that are less troublesum for the reader/viewer, than if you go for the second. Dependent on what your aim, or for that matter, what your target or target group is, you will pick your choise.

Does it work for other areas of communication than mere visuals?  Well, you consider e.g. storytelling where you could have one major theme, and more minor themes. Or music? And other areas?

I would say yes, definitely.

Max Wertheimer: ”Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms” in A Sourcebook of Gestalt Psychology, prepared by Willis D. Ellis,  Routledge & Kegan Paul, Great Britain 1974, page 81 ff. (Library Thing). 

So, let’s move on then.

Coming up is the third gestalt factor (my order): the factor, or law, of closure. Described by Max Wertheimer in the 1920’s and more potent than ever. You’ll see.

If the two first factors: proximity and similarity are need-to-know for communicators, the factor of closure is the holy grail. It’s adds the opportunity of involving your reader. Or viewer. Or whoever.

There are different interpretations of what the meaning of closure, is. Is it a reference to the process of closure, or is it the end result?  On this blog closure will refer to both, depending on the context. Leaving out the rest of possible interpretations.

Commenting upon experiments with some very basic visual objects Wertheimer says: “From an inspection of Figs. 20-22 we are led to the discovery of still another principle: The Factor of Closure. If A, B, C, D are given and AB/CD constitute two self-enclosed units, then this arrangement rather then AC/BD will be apprehended”. (A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1974, page 83).

How do I understand this? Well, in two ways:

1) That which is “closed” (self-enclosed units) are more easily, and rapidly understood then that which is not “closed”. A finished story is more easily understood than an open ended one.

2) There is an inherent strive, in perception, towards “closing” of units. If they are not closed from the outset perception will do its work to close them. Gaps missing will be filled in.

Do you find this a bit cryptic. Don’t despair. I am sure that your interpretation of Wertheimer’s wording is as good as mine.

Anyway here comes an example of how visual closure works. That might bring us s bit closer.

What is that you see in this picture? Is it a spread of black and white dots? Do you find closure working for you? Do you see the dog? (I am sorry, that I don’t know who owns the copyright to this picture). 

Let’s move this factor one step up. Let’s introduce a distinction between the physical closure and the the mental closure. Does closure work on both levels? I think so. Look at these pictures:

Physical Closure vs Non-Closure: 

A pretty easy picture to apprehend to use Wertheimers notion. Not much fuzz and possible deviations here. On the other hand, you may say that this is a bit boring and not that an imaginative picture. I would say that the image has physical closure. (Copenhagen, Denmark 2003).

What happens here? Same lady, but a man added. More like half a man. Some would dismiss this image because it is not physically closed, and blaming the photographer for not being in his right mind. Others might say, that this is a much more interesting image just because physical closure is lacking. Gives you an opportunity to close it yourself. Addresses you in another way then the first image. More demanding. (Copenhagen, Denmark 2003).

Mental Closure vs Non-Closure:  

This image has closure, in my opinion. Both physically and mentally. Like the first picture it is self-contained. The young couple (please remark the effect of both proximity and similarity) don’t need anybody else. There are no elements apparently reaching out of the image. You don’t need to fill any gaps. Mental closure is in place. (Paris, France 2003).

As opposed to this image where self-containment is lacking. Puts a bit of a strain on you to close this one. Do you want to close it, or can you live with this kind of open ended solutions? You might say that this photograph lacks mental closure. I do. (London, UK, 2003). 

How to use:  

How to use the gestalt factor: closure?  

Go for closure, or go for non-closure. Depending on your communication objectives.

I use pictures to illustrate, but it could as well be texts. News articles would typically be closed acts while fiction could be non-closed acts (this could be argued). Political statements, some might say, would better be acts with an apparent closure (so that people will understand them rapidly). Poetry can live with non-closure demanding your engagement and phantasy.

What about advertizing?  If your objectives are product or consumer information, then keep messages closed. If your objectives are image, then non-closure might do better. 

By the way, did you know:

“The need for closure varies across individuals, situations, and cultures. A person with a high need for closure prefers order and predictability and is decisive and close minded. This person also feels discomfort from ambiguity (Hiel & Mervielde 2003). Someone rating low on need for closure will express more ideational fluidity and emit more creative acts (Chirumbolo et al., 2004)”.

For more on this, go here. 

Happy Holiday .

Ok then, let’s move on to the next gestalt factor; the factor of similarity.

This one is really easy: things that are similar tends to be grouped together. Not physically grouped, as with proximity, but mentally grouped. They band together.

In the article by Wertheimer already mentioned, he says:  ”Thus we are led to the discovery of a second principle - viz. the tendency of like parts to band together - which we may call The Factor of Similarity“. 

He states that this factor, as with proximity, is both visual and auditory, it works for sounds as well as for form and colour. I can think of many more areas, but let’s leave it at that for the moment.

What does the word similarity mean. You all have answers to that, but let’s go for the official versions by quoting a dictionary. Just to be on the safe side.

Wikipedia says: “Similarity is some degree of symmetry in either analogy and resemblance between two or more concepts or objects. The notion of similarity rests either on exact or approximate repetitions of patterns in the compared items”.

You might have noticed, that I already touched upon similarity in the post on proximity, where I suggested that the two elderly people not only were sitting close to each other, but also had similar traits. Let me expand on that a bit: They both wear straw hats as protection against the sun, they both sit in the same type of chairs; they both wear casual summer clothing; etcetera. Similar could be says about the younger standing at the right hand side.

I could go on, as I am sure you could. Let’s have a look at one of the pictures once more.

Remember what happened, when I suggested that you substitute the standing man for a standing bottle of Bacarci? Well, you don’t break the proximity. You ungroup the couple, so to speak, because the two objects are no longer similar.

And what happens when substituting both men for bottles of Bacardi? You break the illusion of a quite beach scene, and moves the picture into a surreal world. Right?

You don’t have to agree with me in this interpretation, as long as we can agree that the picture takes on a different set of denotations, as well as connotations. See former post.

If you, in your imagination, substitute the two gentlemen with bottles of Bacardi, other things happens as well. The proximity is still intact, but the original similarity is not. Now we have (in the imagined Bacardi picture) two different sets of similarities. All of a sudden the two women band together. As does the bottles of Bacardi. We have suddenly got one group of people, and one group if Bacardis. This is the factor of similarity working. 

I don’t want to linger on this much longer. It’s pretty obvious what happens, and how similarity dismantle proximity, and regroups the content of the picture.

Another shot coming up. What would I have done without them .

The people proximity isn’t that strong in this shot. The two guys are at separate ends of the glass cylinder. Why are they still grouped? Well, for one reason they are both black; they are both looking into the glass cylinder, they both have bended bodies. They are both standing up. There are lots of reasons. I am sure that you can think of some, as well.

So, let’s end it here. This is, after all, a blog, and not a lecture . Let me suggest some areas of use, as with proximity.

Areas of Use: 

Lots of I would say. Here are a few ones on the fly.

Combining striking colour and striking mood; combining product form and overall visual form; combining black coffee with black panther; combining Red Label with Red Fire; combining colour content with business image content, combining text structure with visual content structure; combining music with mood,  combining woman’s body with sand dunes, combining young child with young tree, combining text with context, combining, combining, combining, combining .. this it getting really boring. You come up with some examples - in any context of communication you can possibly think of.

Or do the opposite: chose dissimilarity, and get striking never-heard-of-effects.  As with the Bacardis.

The gestalt factors works both ways: use them straight to group, or use them faked to ungroup. 

Question: 

Do you see the young girl at the far end of the glass cylinder? Do you really? Or do you see a random structure of black dots?

Coming up soon is another gestalt factor; the factor of closure .

All for now. Thanks. 

Yes, it is a bit artificial splitting things up like this. However, it is useful if you want to pin down a certain point.

So, even if all the Gestalt factors spin together in the routines of our everyday life, here I will handle them one by one. For reasons of clarity. Later on, I will comment on more factor at once, and in more length.

These are pretty useful tools, if you want to be in control of your communication.

What does proximity mean, then? Closeness, nearness, not far from. I am sure you all get it, but below are one of the “official definitions” of the word “proximity”: 

This is just one of the definitions that you find on the net. It is from dictionary.com. If you want more, then just follow the link.

The factor of proximity simply states, that all things equal, it is likely that you will consider objects being close to each other also belonging to the same group. 

A couple of examples. Images of course .

Both pictures are from Nice. Shot August 2002. I am sure that you recognize the place if you have been there. Promenade des Anglais.

First picture. How will you describe it? Two people at the beach? Two hats at the beach. Or would you say, maybe, one couple? These two guys are not only close to each other, there are also a certain similarities between the two, wouldn’t you say? 

Second picture. How would you describe this picture? Would you say, oh, I see 14 objects here; 9 chairs, on plant, and 4 people? Probably not. You would not even say, oh, I see two men and two women, would you? My guess is that you would describe this as two couples. One older, one younger.

Areas of use:  

Well, it is pretty easy.

If want two, or more, objects to be conceived as a group, then place them close to each other. The human mind does the finishing work for you; grouping them.

For instance; if you have a dominant visual element, and a logo that you want perceived as being one unit, then place them close to each other. If you have a text, and you desire to link themes, then one of the ways you can do that, is by grouping the themes in the text (all others things being equal).

And you can play around with the proximity factor. Use it straight forward for straight grouping, or once you have established the group, then play around with it for different effects.

If you, for instance, replace the standing guy, right, with a bottle of Bacardi, you still keep the proximity, but you add connotations, that are quite different from what you find in the picture as it is now. Right? Could be a suggestion that younger couples, particularly men, drink more than older people. Or, for that matter, have more fun. Or wives have more fun? Or maybe just the opposite will come out of it? They don’t have more fun? In this example, you need to be in control of connotations as well.

There are lots of ways, in which you can use the proximity factor in your communication. 

Question:

What happens if you replace both men with bottles of Bacardi?  See what I mean?